 |
 |
 June 19, 2007
SiCKO....Andrew Tobias does a movie review today:
It's true that I wish Michael Moore were a wee bit more scrupulous with the facts in his films, but I sometimes wonder if he doesn't insert random distortions into his movies deliberately. With rare exceptions, after all, they're small things that could just as easily have been presented correctly without damaging his narrative at all. But the end result is the kind of publicity money can't buy, and it's the sweetest kind of publicity of all: the kind that's subsidized by his enemies, who helpfully boost ticket sales by furiously denouncing his films for weeks on end. With SiCKO, though, I'm willing to bet Moore mostly sticks to the facts. When you're dealing with the American healthcare industry, after all, the facts alone are usually hard enough to swallow. Anything more would simply seem implausible, like expecting us to believe that Katherine Heigl has a hard time getting a date. Which, of course, explains why he shot part of SiCKO in Cuba. Sweden or Canada would have worked just as well, but probably no other country in the world could have produced the kind of howling denunciations from the National Review set that Cuba has produced. Even the State Department got briefly into the act. Really, Moore's brilliance at getting his mortal enemies to do all his publicity for him is unparallelled. His enemies' willingness to go along with this time after time is astonishing. —Kevin Drum 12:22 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (140)Comments
But don't you do the same for the Coulters, etc.? Posted by: Jonny Shabadoo on June 19, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINKKevin, your a turd for saying that the State Department is an 'enemy' of Michael Moore. The State Department is not the enemy of any American. Posted by: ken on June 19, 2007 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINKI find it an interesting theory that one should never think that the State Department helped one get shot at for no good reason. A crackpot theory, yet a theory nonetheless. Posted by: parrot on June 19, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINKHis enemies' willingness to go along with this time after time is astonishing. Poor sphincter control has always been their undoing. Moore's choice of Cuba was brilliant, both from the standpoint of promotion and political effect. The very fact that Cuba is third world (or close to it) and roundly despised yet seems to offer superior health care is a powerful indictment of the health care system in the US. The point of using Cuba surely was to embarrass and shame us into action. Even the outrage of the right over Moore's going to Cuba only reinforces the argument that we as Americans should be able to do better than this deeply flawed country. Posted by: frankly0 on June 19, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINKA Michael Moore v. Anne Coulter Cage Match. now THAT I would pay to see. Posted by: ny patriot on June 19, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINKDebbie Schlussel does a movie review three weeks ago. I bet Debb has no trouble getting a date...
Oh, had to get another Katherine Heigl remark in there, eh Kevin? (Yes, I think she's beautiful too...) As far as I could tell in the movie you're referring to, there was no indication she was looking for a date. Are you you saying no women not in relationships or not having sex are doing so by choice? The Onion had a terrific take on this phenomenon: "Half Of Nation Outraged At New, Not-Yet-Released Michael Moore Film" Posted by: Otto Man on June 19, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKSomebody TiVo'd an interview Oprah had with Michael Moore for me...Oprah's take is that the movie is somewhat subdued in comparison Moore's previous films. The only other film of Moore's that I've seen is Roger and Me, but I'll probably end up seeing this one. It's about time that the problems with this country's healthcare industry are addressed and debated in the open. Posted by: grape_crush on June 19, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINKfenugreek, two scenes from Moore's films have permanently altered my world view: The scene in bowling for columbine where he walks into one Canadian house after another, because they are all left unlocked. The people inside, surprised to see him, don't freak out. The scene in Farenheit 911 showing Bush's inauguration parade through the howling mobs of protesters. I had zero inkling before the movie that anything like that had happened. Posted by: Boronx on June 19, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINKAnother bit that was really effective in F-911: the scenes of admin. officials primping for the TV. After seeing that, any mocking of John Edwards' haircut is transparently hollow and dishonest. Posted by: Boronx on June 19, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINKscrupulous with facts ?? you sound like you have swollowed the right wing spin on MM. I saw a screening of SICKO this weekend and MM did a Q & A afterwards - -he stated that he has only paid out 6200 bucks his entire career in settlement because of his films and NOTHING since 1990 -- if he was so loose with the facts as you claim he would have had to pay out much much more. Posted by: smartone on June 19, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINKWhen I tell Republicans or conservatives Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US, they either disbelieve me or make up some rationalization of why (all of those premature births). Then I tell them Cuba also ranks very high in literacy. Posted by: Brojo on June 19, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKKen, Kevin did say Moore's brilliance at getting his mortal enemies to do all his publicity for him is unparallelled. "Moral" is a pretty significant qualifier. Posted by: Everblue Stater on June 19, 2007 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINKKen, you're a turd for saying that Drum said that "the State Department is an 'enemy' of Michael Moore." Do you think we can't just scroll back up and see what he actually wrote? Posted by: Lee on June 19, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINKscrupulous with facts ?? you sound like you have swollowed the right wing spin on MM. I saw a screening of SICKO this weekend and MM did a Q & A afterwards - -he stated that he has only paid out 6200 bucks his entire career in settlement because of his films and NOTHING since 1990 -- if he was so loose with the facts as you claim he would have had to pay out much much more Just another Drum drive-by iteration of a right-wing talking point...with zero examples to back himself up. This passes for "liberal reasonableness" and "moderation" in Drumworld. Sigh...and the last post was so good, too. Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINKCanada is also featured. As is France and the UK. Moore is good a picking the people who will appear in his films. In Sicko Moore uses a friend of mine's Dad. His bicep rolled up into his chest after falling out of his golf cart in Florida and his American insurance company decided it was best to fly him back to Ontario. Not only is he a retiree who spends six months a year in Florida and loves the US, he's an ex-cop and life-long member of the Conservative Party of Canada. In the film he talks about Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather, the father of Canadian health care and recently voted Best Canadian ever. He's going to be a tough one to discredit. Maybe a Dem Presidential candidate should hire Michael Moore as his/her campaign manager. The Dems could really use a dose of Moore's talent at finding and pushing his enemies' hot buttons to his advantage. Posted by: low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) on June 19, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINKBoronx The Canadian scene slightly irritated me. Because really, Canadians living in big cities lock their door. And most Canadians in rural areas have readily accessible guns. Yes Canadians have a lower murder rate, and a lower gun ownership rate, and strong gun controls, but the 'laid back' society is not just about that. In fact, it's probably in part about the smaller gap between rich and poor in Canada, a function of a much more active welfare state, state medicare etc. But believe me, Canadians in big cities fear crime. On the protests at the Inauguration, they were well covered here in Europe. It's amazing the respect your press shows your president, and the degree to which he is isolated from them and put on a pedestal, compared to our Prime Minister here. Your press treated Bush almost the way the Italian media treated Berlusconi (Berlusconi owned most of the private media outlets, and the state owned TV was put under his direct authority-- he got a couple of comedians fired for making Berlusconi jokes). Blair has been grilled by the BBC (state owned tv company)-- I mean really grilled, one on one, with top interviewers. I saw the same process with Royale and with Sarkozy in France. Posted by: Valuethinker on June 19, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINKshortstop - Moore edited the interviews with Charlton Heston to make it look like Heston said things he didn't - Moore made a big case that he was never allowed to talk to Roger Smith. In fact, he had 3 interviews with Smith - that missile manufacturer he interviews, in fact the guy was surprised by his question because he was talking about a completely different component that they move through the town. He makes it look like the guy is being disingenuous, when in fact he is trying to be completely straight I am sorry I am vague on the details, but if you surf around, you can find objective analyses from (liberal) media analysts about some of Moore's distortions. he is an effective propagandist, and much of what he says is true, but he also uses distortions. As I express above I have my reservations about his characterisation of Canada on the question of personal safety. I am pro gun control, but it has been a bit of a nightmare to implement in Canada and it isn't the sole or even the main reason why Canada has a lower crime rate than the US. Posted by: Valuethinker on June 19, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINKValuethinker, but I live in a small American town where there's little crime and everyone owns a gun, yet we're all paranoid and lock our doors. I'm sure the scene way over generalized Canada. What affected me is what it says about America, at least my part of it. Posted by: Boronx on June 19, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINKAn American guy told me of a friend who spent five days in a hospital in China with surgery to repair a hand he injured there in an accident. The total bill for surgery plus five days was $700. He had the work checked out in the US, where the doc said it was done exactly how a US doc would do it. But his bill was over $700 for the consultation. It is like the Big Three auto biz in the sixties, where the dinosaurs did not realize their plight. Competition is coming. MM is letting the public know in his own way. Posted by: Bob M on June 19, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINKMoore's brilliance at getting his mortal enemies to do all his publicity for him is unparallelled. Wrong. Mel Gibson brilliantly exploited the attacks of antisemitism addressed against the Crucifixion. I mean - I haven't seen the thing - but I understand large gobs of it were in Aramaic and Latin. Talk about a movie that was therefore doomed to fail.... Posted by: Thinker on June 19, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINKThe Canadian scene slightly irritated me. Because really, Canadians living in big cities lock their door. When I lived in downtown Toronto I didn't, not when I was at home. Nor did most of my friends. And on the west coast our back door was unlocked even when noone was home. And yes, had a stranger walk in once. So my experience at least jibes with Michael Moore. Maybe you can be slightly irritated with me too? Posted by: snicker-snack on June 19, 2007 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINKI'm sure the scene way over generalized Canada. Over locking doors? A bit. Someone can swoop into any neighbourhood from the highway. But I don't bother locking my door most of the time. The odds of getting hit are low, so I just go with the odds. Even those I know who did get hit don't get paranoid about it. I always saw Americans as tough, not paranoid. Paranoia is a sign of weakness, isn't it? Posted by: Bob M on June 19, 2007 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINKValuethinker, You seem to imply that the argument of the Canadian scenes was that gun control led to less crime. My remembered impression of the scenes was the point that Canada had MORE guns per capita and LESS control. Yet Canadians also had less of a tendency to shoot each other. Throughout the movie, he suggests that the problem is a culture of violence and fear - not gun ownership per se. Valuethinker: I have lived in Canadian cities my whole life (Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver). Even in East Vancouver, not exactly the best neighborhood, my front door is unlocked when I'm in the house. I only lock doors when I'm leaving or heading for bed. During the day, when I'm at home, it honestly wouldn't occur to me that my doors need to be locked. Here's the really crazy thing: I had a hard time believing people *do* lock their doors in the daytime (when they're home). Posted by: dt on June 19, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINKI would take issue with him being scrupulous with the facts at times. What he does, and does brilliantly, is present a *series* of facts, in order to lead the viewer into the believing the possibility of a specific narrative as truth. He leaves that final grain of doubt in our minds so that we'll do the last bit of research, hopefully, to discover the truth behind all the disparate elements he binds together into his films. Show me a list of Michael Moore lies that aren't just mis-stated or mis-interpreted and I'll gladly hold my tongue. Posted by: Fred F. on June 19, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINKValuethinker: I have no problem with the presentation of specific criticisms of specific aspects of Moore's films. Off the top of my head, I could make 10 or 15 of them. Off the top of my head, I could probably name twice as many instances in which wingnut critics have charged Moore with outright falsehoods--and his critics were mistaken, lying or unable to determine the difference between a factual error and Moore's decision on how to present or shade information. The guy makes controversial films in which many points and editing decisions are debatable. So debate those points and decisions. What I'm objecting to (again) is Kevin's habit of flinging out established right-wing talking points without a single example to back himself up. The wingnuts are in the habit of painting Moore with the blanket description of "liar" (when they're not too busy disparaging his BMI) and most of the time, they don't bother to explain just what information they have a problem with. Kevin's doing the same thing serves no purpose whatsoever except validating wingnuttery and advancing his own peculiar idea of what constitutes "balance" in a post. I might also add that the comment "[this time], I'm willing to bet Moore mostly sticks to the facts" not only supports the idea that Moore mostly doesn't--a statement that needs a whole lot of defending--it also acts as a weird preemptive review of a movie Kevin hasn't even seen. It's like predicting that tonight's Daily Show will be funnier than last night's or the next Oprah will be sappier than the last one. What's the point? Wait and see. I loved Kevin's Green Zone post. Wish he'd carried through that post's moxie in this one, rather than carrying GOP water...again. Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINKVT: Canuckistan has relatively lax gun controls and fewer gun crimes and high gun ownership and unlocked doors. That latter is open (sorry) to debate. But that was Moore's key point--exploring why. You dig? Chuck Heston said, in response to Moore's question as to why the U.S. has an unusually high gun crime rate, "We have probably more mixed ethnicity than other counries." (not true, by the way). Dude, the guy's a racist. As with George Allen, there's just no other way to spin it. But I suppose you already knew that. Decent discussion here. Posted by: ed on June 19, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINKTell the truth now, is there a single person reading Kevin Drum today who would choose to be treated for a serious illness in Cuba rather than the United States? Does anyone here believe that ordinary Cubans receive the health care shown on film? Do you know what a Potemkin village is? Moore is a skilled propagandist, to be sure, the Leni Riefenstahl of his generation. Well, if that turns you, it's a free country. Posted by: DBL on June 19, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINKGun ownership rate in Canucistan: 70% 7 million guns for 10 million Canucks. Lots of "ethnic minorities" up there too. Posted by: ed on June 19, 2007 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINKwell, no, factually it couldn't have been set as well in Cuba. that part's a lie in implication. why? cause Cuba has a two tier health system...hi-tech hospitals with plenty of supplies for the elite and for foreigners paying hard cash...where Moore went. then there's the hospitals where most Cubans go. which Moore didn't go to. with that said, yes, the U.S. health care system is broken and yes, there are countries with significantly superior health care to the U.S. Cuba is not one of them. talk to anyone who has been in Cuba for any length of time (i.e. years not weeks)...i.e. diplomats or some journalists...and it becomes clear that the average Cuban has worse health care than the average American. yes, I realize that 45 million Americans are without health insurance (I'm one of them..though actually I'm a classic free rider -- young enough and healthy enough that not having insurance (which I can afford) is a rational choice...and I know that I'll be given emergency care if I need it), but that's 15% of our population...that's not the average American. who is truly screwed in the U.S. are the working poor...the middle and upper classes have health insurance (by and large), the truly indigent have health insurance, it's next rung up that doesn't. Posted by: Nathan on June 19, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK(I'm one of them..though actually I'm a classic free rider -- young enough and healthy enough that not having insurance (which I can afford) is a rational choice...and I know that I'll be given emergency care if I need it) You really are an idiot, Nathan (although it gives us an interesting glimpse into your actual employment situation). Silly boy, the worst you can imagine befalling you is getting sideswiped by a cab as you scream into your cell phone while crossing the street. Universe forbid that you should be diagnosed with a serious illness tomorrow (yes, it happens to arrogant young reality-deniers, too). You'll find out damned quickly what you'd have to do to get and keep that "emergency care": spend all your assets to make a dent in the medical bills...then, to obtain continued care, declare yourself indigent and go on public aid because no private insurer would take you for your preexisting condition. Or maybe you'd prefer to declare bankruptcy...oh, wait; you're going to have a little trouble doing that because of your guys' recent legislation on that very topic. Complete foolishness. Utter and complete. You did get one thing right though: the working poor are suffering greatly from the systemic problems in the U.S. You just forgot the next rungs up: the millions of working non-poor whose insurance is insufficient, whose claims are arbitrarily denied or whose insurance is canceled when they fall ill. From the previews, it looks like Moore isn't overlooking this enormous group like you're attempting to do. Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINKI only lock doors when I'm leaving or heading for bed. During the day, when I'm at home, it honestly wouldn't occur to me that my doors need to be locked. Me, too. And I live in Washington, DC. What's the big deal? Posted by: Vicente Fox on June 19, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINKShortstop (June 19, 2007 at 1:51 PM): Game. Set. Match. Yes, yes, Kevin, I'm sure Moore is a proud protege of Walter Duranty, and it really speaks well of you that you find Moore admirable in some regard. Posted by: Will Allen on June 19, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINKHoly fuck, ed, you couldn't even bother to check a source? "10 million Canucks"? Yeah, and we all live in fucking igloos. Sheesh. Note to DBL: I've been to Cuba. Economic basketcase, absolutely, yet they have a great health care system that treats people equally. Sure, there's better care for you in the US if you're rich, but *every* Cuban has access to better health care than the 40 million Americans with *no* health insurance, and that's just a sick, sick fact. Posted by: dt on June 19, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKGun ownership rate in Canucistan: 70% 7 million guns for 10 million Canucks. Huh? Where are you getting your numbers, ed? First of all, there are over 30 million Canadians. Second, 7 million for 10 million isn't necessarily 70%. Third, I haven't done any googling on this yet, but I seriously doubt Canadian gun ownership is anything more than a small fraction of what you are claiming. Posted by: skeg on June 19, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINKand I know that I'll be given emergency care if I need it Good luck getting emergency care for cancer. Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINKcause Cuba has a two tier health system...hi-tech hospitals with plenty of supplies for the elite and for foreigners paying hard cash...where Moore went. then there's the hospitals where most Cubans go. Gee, any facts to back that up? If you look at a primary indicator of health care, such as the infant mortality rate: "According to the latest C.I.A. World Factbook, Cuba is one of 41 countries that have better infant mortality rates than the U.S."Note, this is not just comparing MIssissippi to Cuba, but is about the whole US. Posted by: MonkeyBoy on June 19, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK source is Moore's movie. The 10 million must be households. Posted by: ed on June 19, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINKIt thrills me that my tax dollars may end up helping to pay for Nathan if he gets hit by a flipping bus. What a typical conservative. Posted by: Susan on June 19, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINKWill, it really says something about you that you voted for the guy who did nothing to stop 9/11 and that you still hold the architect of the Iraq war disaster in some regard. How many Iraqis will die today because of your tribal loyalty to militarism? Posted by: noel on June 19, 2007 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINKDBL: "Tell the truth now, is there a single person reading Kevin Drum today who would choose to be treated for a serious illness in Cuba rather than the United States? " I am guessing the ones without health insurance . . . Posted by: EmmaAnne on June 19, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINKPoor Americans would be wise to let their children be born in Cuba. You may not want to live there, but it is a safer place to be born. Posted by: Brojo on June 19, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINKnoel, please reprint any remark in which I indicate that I have regard for George W. Bush. The fact that I disliked him less that his opponents is not evidence that I have regard for him. Posted by: Will Allen on June 19, 2007 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINKNathan posts: "...and I know that I'll be given emergency care if I need it" You'll also be given a bill for the emergency care. A bill you will be required to pay. Idiot. Posted by: thug on June 19, 2007 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINKAccording to an interview Moore did with Howard Stern the other day, he didn't go to CUBA so much as he went to Guantanamo Bay, a US military base. The point, he said, wasn't that CUBA's health program was so much better, but that suspected terrorists who caused 9/11 in US custody were getting far superior treatment than the firefighters and rescue workers who had to help out our side on that day in NYC. It was prompted, he said, by Bill Frist reading a list of all the health checks, including dental cleanings, that Gitmo detainees got while US citizens who worked on the WTC site got nada. I haven't seen the movie, I'm just reporting on what Moore said on the Stern show. Posted by: Jef Hebert on June 19, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINKI hate everybody. But I hate liberals the most. Also, you're all illiterate. Posted by: Wil Allen on June 19, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINKSusan: I paid 45K in taxes last year on 105K income. so fuck off. and I'm not counting sales taxes. I'm paying a lot more than my share. self-employment in NY's a bitch. Stefan: I'm 32. thug: its actually a perfectly rational choice. even if I broke my leg tomorrow...treatment wouldn't be more than one years insurance cost. it's not worth it. Posted by: Nathan on June 19, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINKand I know that I'll be given emergency care if I need it And I know that my tax dollars will be paying for his emergency care..... Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINKStefan: um, that's why I called myself a "classic free rider"...or didn't you read that? yes, people like me are a sign that the system is broken. I said that too. Posted by: Nathan on June 19, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINKI'm kinda hoping that Nathan will one day be patriotic enough to obtain emergency medical care in Iraq at the hands of a US Army medic. Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 19, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK"I can't get seriously ill because I'm only 32!" Unfuckingbelievable. You couldn't invent judgment this bad. Would be interesting to see his other "self-employed" business decisions. Nathan's "thought" processes always fit in beautifully with the last six years and the Bush administration's utter inability to look two, much less six, seconds down the road. Nathan, my wish for you is that luck will overrule your own moronic actions. May you not get what you deserve. That's the nicest thing anyone will ever say to you. Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINKActually, I don't hate people whom I don't know personally, and I've been lucky enough to never know anyone personally who was a legitimate target for such an emotion. Posted by: Will Allen on June 19, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINKStefan: I'm 32. Right. Because 32 year olds never get cancer or similar diseases.... Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINKI'm looking forward to it. And Kevin, face it: "Knocked Up" was clever and funny. You missed the boat on that one. Posted by: KilgoreTrout XL on June 19, 2007 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINKActually, given the structure of our health care system, there may be substantial wisdom in a healthy, single, 32 year old business owner who has not yet acquired substantial assets to put off getting a health insurance policy for a few years. The capital that would be used on premiums may well be, on a risk adjusted basis, better utilized in growing the business, especially if the business owner thinks there is a decent chance he'll be marrying someone who works for a large employer withing the next five to ten years. Now, I don't have any problem telling such a person, if they, say, are diagnosed with cancer, or get in a srious accident, after having made such a decision, that the taxpayer will only be on the hook for pain meds until they croak, but I understand that most folks disagree with me. Posted by: Will Allen on June 19, 2007 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINKshortstop and Stefan: um, you might want to try a little statistical literacy. its a rational economic choice...and there's more than one economic paper on the subject verifying this. it helps that a. I know my family's medical history; b. I'm not fat; c. I'm in superlative cardiovascular shape; d. I'm male. starting about 40 it's a damn good idea to have insurance. oh...and no assets that I'm imperiling. but enough about me...like I said, Cuba has a two-prong medical system. they do some things well even at the lower-level that most Cubans experience (whoever said they have "equal" care is a credulous moron)...their preventative care system is excellent...thus the low infant mortality rate (assuming you take the figures at face value). but invasive surgery, serious conditions, etc? you sure as heck either be a foreigner with hard cash or high up in the regime. so yeah, a poor citizen who's hit by a bus would be better off in Canada than in the U.S., and worse off in Cuba. Posted by: Nathan on June 19, 2007 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINKheh, Will Allen noticed the other part of the calculus. nothing like living in the city with the highest surplus ratio of wealthy, employed, educated single women in the country...exactly the statistical opposite of CA actually. Posted by: Nathan on June 19, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINKnothing like living in the city with the highest surplus ratio of wealthy, employed, educated single women in the country And a goodly supply of 10-foot poles?? Posted by: Ain't Touchin' Nathan With A... on June 19, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINKSo you have no assets, Nathan, nothing to lose because you haven't saved a dime at the age of 32 despite making more than $100K a year. That's more great judgment and responsibility there, guy. So, since you've planned for nothing and have nothing, if you're diagnosed with a serious illness, you'll be fine going on public aid and Medicaid. Is that right? Or will you choose Will's route and simply ask us to pay for your pain meds until you die from lack of treatment? Which is it? Oh, you ignored that part of Will's post, did you? Bad, bad, bad judgment. It's not about the statistical likelihood. It's about the worst-case scenario and how likely a particular bad choice is to completely, totally fuck up your future. You don't by chance have a gambling problem, do you? Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINKGun ownership rate in Canucistan: 70% 7 million guns for 10 million Canucks. Lots of "ethnic minorities" up there too.
We do have heaps of people from all over though. My favorite scene was when he talked to the black man in Windsor, who was actually from Detroit, and the man said that he felt more welcome in Canada than in the US. shortstop, shortstop: um, you realize that your argument reeks of Dick Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" don't you? (the idea that a given event...if of sufficient gravity, must be treated as a certainty even though it's of very low statistical probability)...but then intellectual consistency isn't your thing. anyway: since you decided to grant aspersions on my biography, here's plenty: went to law school after doing my Ph.D....so I graduated at 28. worked at a firm for 2 years, then have been on my own for 2 years. used the income from the two years at the firm (which was higher than I make now...to pay off certain high-interest student loans that couldn't be consolidated...as well as purchase equipment for the artistic endeavour I'm now engaged in...I supplement my current income with consultant work on specific securities litigations). as to 105K in income...like I said, 45K goes to taxes. that leaves 60K takehome (these are last year's figures). this is NY. rent and utilities are 2.5K (and that's a steal for where I live). so after rent I'm at 30K. so, a little over 2K a month for everything else. if I added health insurance...($450-600 a month)...it wouldn't be pretty. basic math my friend. Posted by: Nathan on June 19, 2007 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINKShortstop, you still don't get it. Given the current structure, Nathan's gamble is very sensible. If my preferred structure existed, it wouldn't be. My preferred structure doesn't exist, however. Posted by: Will Allen on June 19, 2007 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINKAlso, depending on the business, a 32 year old entrepreneur could easily have poured all disposable income back into the enterprise, and not have tangible assets to show yet, and yet be operating the business very shrewdly. Posted by: Will Allen on June 19, 2007 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINKWhat's your plan if you get really sick, Nathan? Seriously, chronically sick? Come on, now, what is it? Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINKWhy should we be surprised? Al Qaida got George W. Bush to play to their tune and serve their purposes. Bush has created the biggest PR boost for Al Qaida imaginable - billions spent on "advertising" beneficial to Al Qaida. It is hardly even a small effort for Moore to get Bush's imbecilic followers to do the same for him. Posted by: anonymous on June 19, 2007 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK"And Kevin, face it: "Knocked Up" was clever and funny." Yup, that about sums it up Kevin. I went and saw it after your previous rant. I am not 20-something either, but it was a pretty damn good movie. Maybe a little weak in the start, but it just got better and better throughout. And you keep repeating this "Heigel has a hard time getting a date" thing. To my memory, there was zero indication of this in the movie. She was just out for a fun evening with her sister and unbelievably enough fell for the guy who got her a beer, acted sweet, and had a good sense of humor. The next morning she sobered and quickly realized what a slacker he was. If she hadn't gotten pregnant, she would never have talked to the guy again - is this really that shocking a story line for you? Come on Kevin, lighten up. Posted by: HungChad on June 19, 2007 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINKum, that's why I called myself a "classic free rider"...or didn't you read that? Um, yes. And I'm bemoaning precisely the fact that you're riding off my money. You take the risk, and I pay for your appalling poor judgment. And for the second time in two days, I glide right over the fact that Nathan is accusing me of lack of reading comprehension and poor attention to detail.... Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2007 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINKWill Allen: Also, depending on the business, a 32 year old entrepreneur could easily have poured all disposable income back into the enterprise, and not have tangible assets to show yet, and yet be operating the business very shrewdly. Silly Willy. An able entrepreneur could have done that, yes. We're discussing Nathan now. Take a look at his resume, the cleaned-up version he's posted here. Anything jump out at you? Shortstop, you still don't get it. Given the current structure, Nathan's gamble is very sensible. If my preferred structure existed, it wouldn't be. My preferred structure doesn't exist, however. I do get it, hon, but I don't think you do. Your insure-yourself-or-die scenario doesn't exist--my snarking at it notwithstanding--but mine does. In case you hadn't noticed, it goes like this: An uninsured person who becomes significantly ill is responsible for the medical bills until his or her assets run out. After that time, this person, who is now uninsurable by private carriers, has the option of a) forgoing medical care or b) accepting publicly funded medical care. To accomplish b), the now assetless person must also go on public aid. That's how it works in the U.S., Will. Now, Nathan has done a bang-up job of demonstrating, once again, that he's unable to look unflinchingly at certain basic realities about this American life. His worst-case scenario is, laughably, a broken leg, and even now he absolutely refuses to consider the possibility of serious illness. Does this sound like a competent young businessman to you? Ah, Kevin. Micheal Moore is a sicko. And you carry water for him. Posted by: egbert on June 19, 2007 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINKif I added health insurance...($450-600 a month)...it wouldn't be pretty. I also note that, in classic Nathan goalpost-shifting fashion, we've gone from "I can well afford health insurance but I don't want it" to "Woe is me, I can't afford it." The only constant is his refusal to admit that he might need it. Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINKshortstop: the statistical odds of someone in my demographic position getting a serious chronic illness are extremely low. Fact. that's not worth $450-600 a month to avert. but then math isn't your thing. Posted by: Nathan on June 19, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINKActually, Kevin, what's more amazing than Moore's success in baiting his "enemies", is his compatriots' eagerness to turn a blind eye to the realities of Cuban health care in the name of scoring political points. Take a trip there sometime Kevin. Visit an actual clinic, not a potemkin hospital staffed with foreign doctors. Wander around the tin roof, dirt floor neighborhoods with no electricity and look at the middle aged people with half their teeth missing. I have. It's not pretty. Cuba imports sugar for fuck's sake. Where do you think all the money comes from for all this high quality "free" health care? No, but what amuses Kevin is when Moore's "enemies" point out what a disgraceful sham this all is. Clap away liberals, no one in Cuba can hear you! as to 105K in income...like I said, 45K goes to taxes. that leaves 60K takehome (these are last year's figures). this is NY. rent and utilities are 2.5K (and that's a steal for where I live). so after rent I'm at 30K. so, a little over 2K a month for everything else. if I added health insurance...($450-600 a month)...it wouldn't be pretty. You know what's less pretty? Your knowledge of medical costs. I had a back surgery in 2005 (second, actually). Pretty simple -- three hours and a two day hospital stay. Total bill: $180,000. Seriously. $180,000. I can't imagine what it'd take to fix someone in a car wreck. Or what chemo would cost. The fact it was that expensive is insane. The fact that if I hadn't had insurance, I'd be totally hosed, is insane. The fact anyone would choose to go without insurance and get screwed with that kind of bill is insane. And it's insane and sad that millions of Americans have no choice. Posted by: Mark D on June 19, 2007 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINKMark D: sorry. but explain why I (not you) would need back surgery. if I get hit by a cab...it's going to be someone else's fault...their insurance will cover it. etc. Posted by: Nathan on June 19, 2007 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINKbut then math isn't your thing. Do you cheat on your taxes Nathan? If not, why not? Odds are you won't be audited. Posted by: ckelly on June 19, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINKRight, Nathan. You leave or get fired by a law firm after only two years, while you still have enormous law school loans to pay off, because you can't wait another minute to follow your bliss as an "artist." You choose to pay Manhattan rents. Because of these decisions and other choices you're not mentioning in this thread but have discussed in the past--for instance, your avowed fondness for pricy restaurants and other of life's niceties--you can't manage to come up with $450 a month for health insurance. And I'm not good at math. Don't misunderstand me. You have every right to spend your self-limited income on whatever you wish. But then you lose the right to cry about not being able to afford even catastrophic health coverage, you see. And I note you still haven't told us what you plan to do if that statistically unlikelihood turns out to have your number on it. Since you proudly announced your non-insured status and have been so eager to explain what you'll do if a minor injury should occur, I can't see why you're continuing to be so reticent about how you'll handle paying for a major illness. Surely you've thought this through. Haven't you? Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINKNathan: if I get hit by a cab...it's going to be someone else's fault...their insurance will cover it. etc. I know this is going to puzzle you, Nathan, but it's possible that something could happen to your health that isn't attributable, and thus chargeable, to someone else. Something bad, Nathan. Something big. You're having us on. No one could really be this stupid. Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINKNathan: . . . the statistical odds of someone in my demographic position getting a serious chronic illness are extremely low. However, the statistical odds of someone in Nathan's demographic position getting terminal stupidity appear to be very high based on a sampling of one (Nathan himself). Posted by: anonymous on June 19, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKNathan: . . . if I get hit by a cab...it's going to be someone else's fault...their insurance will cover it. etc. Obviously, Nathan has not been introduced to Bush's world of tort reform (or perhaps he is just in denial). LOL. Then again, Bork the Dork touted tort reform and is now himself pushing a frivolous and outlandish lawsuit for his own actions that were vastly more dim-witted than spilling hot coffee on one's lap. So, maybe people like Bork and Nathan believe they are above their own tort reform rules - "your lawsuit is frivolous, mine is not, and I get to decide that" is their rule! Posted by: anonymous on June 19, 2007 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINKshortstop: No one could really be this stupid. Bush is living evidence that this statement is grossly inaccurate. Posted by: anonymous on June 19, 2007 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINKanonymous: Then again, Bork the Dork touted tort reform and is now himself pushing a frivolous and outlandish lawsuit for his own actions that were vastly more dim-witted than spilling hot coffee on one's lap. My favorite part is the punitive damages Bork is demanding from that dastardly Yale Club on top of the $1 mil for his headache and sore leg. Look up "shame" in these guys' personal dictionaries and you'll see...wait, these guys' dictionaries don't contain that word. Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINKsorry. but explain why I (not you) would need back surgery. You slip and fall, for example, or injure yourself at the gym leaning down to pick up a ten-pound weight. Or you get in a cab, the cab crashes, instant back injury. if I get hit by a cab...it's going to be someone else's fault...their insurance will cover it. etc. Unless, of course, that cab owner (or any other kind of person who could cause you harm) has decided that insurance isn't really worth the cost to them and has decided to go without. In which case you're fucked. You think, for example, that all those gypsy cabs roaming around are fully insured? Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2007 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINKShortstop, the purpose of insurance is to be protect assets. If a person with a small amount of assets can obtain health care services via Medicaid, is very unlikely to be diagnosed with a chronic illness prior to age 40, and very unlikely to suffer a serious accident, and is likely to be married to someone through whom they can enroll in an open enrollment plan by age 40, it is statistically unwise for them to invest $50,000 in health care premiums over the next 8 years. It doesn't make any sense to use $50,000 in current income to protect assets which don't exist. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Posted by: Will Allen on June 19, 2007 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINKThank you, homer. The degree to which people in 2006 are willing to accept at face value described conditions in a place where descrbing conditions in the wrong way can land a person in a prison is astounding. All these folks, kevin included, could have done a great job subbing for Walter Duranty in the '30s. They are useful in the classic sense. Posted by: Will Allen on June 19, 2007 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINKShortstop, the purpose of insurance is to be protect assets. Not quite -- the purpose is also to pay for services by spreading the cost around, in this case medical services. If a person with a small amount of assets can obtain health care services via Medicaid, Merely having a small amount of assets won't qualify you for Medicaid. Nathan, for example, with his $105K salary would never be able to qualify. It doesn't make any sense to use $50,000 in current income to protect assets which don't exist. Assets may not exist now, but if you're stuck with a big hospital bill due to not having insurance you'll have to pay that off with future assets. Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINKWill, you chastise Kevin for his "regard" for Moore which has almost no effect on the lives of individuals and then claim that your vote shows no "regard" for Bush, even as it enables him to engineer the slaughter of tens of thousands. Seems quite clear which one of you has done more damage to the real world. As a two-time voter for Bush your tribe has committed shocking violence both to the people of the Middle East and to our own constitution. If you had a smidgen of decency you would refrain from all political action until you could atone for the massive bloodshed you and your tribe have engendered. Posted by: noel on June 19, 2007 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINKNathan: if I get hit by a cab...it's going to be someone else's fault...their insurance will cover it. etc. That's a very... trusting attitude, that they'll have insurance, and that their insurance doesn't fight paying out tooth and nail, and that the insurance is deep enough to cover, say, years of rehab. My next door neighbor used to be an up-and-coming near-executive for a Silicon Valley tech company. Used to be. Now she does what she can from home during her 3-6 good hours each day. She does cat sitting. If she hadn't inherited her house she'd be screwed. What happened was her car got t-boned by some guy. Sure, everyone had insurance, but that guy had just the minimum, and she needed very expensive surgeries to rebuild her legs. (she can walk, with a cane). Her own insurance wasn't evil, but it did have a cap. Like the guy said above- $180,000 for one surgery isn't difficult. She had multiple surgeries, and lots of post-op stays, and plenty of rehab: she hit the cap hard. What about the law? He had assets: she sued and won- it was entirely his fault. But he went back home to another country, and so she got nothing (other than tens of thousands of bills from her lawyer). Or consider what happened to a friend of mine during a month when he was between jobs and uninsured (COBRA has exceptions). One evening he was with friends, and they were walking by a bar. Two guys rushed out, fighting and drunk, and one hit my friend in the nose / lower eye socket. Totally random. Broken nose and a broken bit of lower eye socket: 12 hours at the hospital. $10,000. He negotiated it down to $8,000 because he could pay all at once. Nathan, you and your same-aged friends must have had a charmed life so far (you don't know anyone with a chronic illness at your age? Even depression makes one uninsurable)... it's almost cute in its innocence, except that it'll be my taxpayer dollars paying for your basic care if someone t-bones your rental car. Posted by: Kathryn in Sunnyvale on June 19, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINKCompaneros! I am so encouraged that you have highlighted the workers paradise in Cuba. Fight the reactionaries among you who would denigrate the revolution! Why, did not the loyal minions of the Commandante aggressively act to assist those suffering from the so-called "Aids" when the decadent west was denying it - calling it the "gay" cancer?! In Cuba, special medical treatment facilities were organized - from scratch! - to house and treat those suffering from this curious medical condition. The razor wire and fences were to ENSURE the safety of those being treated inside - [scoff], truly, you could not imply that the other cubanos would have hostile feelings for the AIDS sufferers? That is your narrow capitalist fear-mongering liar government talking!!!! the government in Cuba, opps sorry - I meant the natural, perfect expression of the will of the workers united [ok, let us call it "whatever Commandante wants"] would not countenance such an abomination! Why, just now I correct his beknightedness, El Commandante himself - He said "The USA will NEVER have Cuba." "Actually," I corrected him, " They did have Cuba, they just gave it back to us after liberating it from Spain." so you see, we HAVE free and open dialogue with..[sound of gunshot, body slumping to floor].....[transmission ended]. Posted by: Californio on June 19, 2007 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINKWill, one purpose of insurance is to protect assets. In the U.S., with our current system set up so that the uninsured can only obtain continuing major medical care if they a) are wealthy to the degree that they can pay for any and all medical treatments, or b) are willing to sign away the ability to earn income or receive it from family members (i.e., go on public aid, which is the only way to obtain full medical care that is publicly funded), the purpose of private insurance is somewhat wider. That is, it exists not only to protect any assets you may currently hold; it also a) protects, to a degree, your ability to continue to be covered by private insurance after an illness is diagnosed and b) protects your ability to keep working rather than consign yourself to indigence. You casually state that a person with few assets can obtain Medicaid as though that person can continue to work and retain control of his or her income, despite my having pointed out several times that this is not the case. (There are some supplemental state plans that do insure low-income employed people, usually those who already have some limited insurance, but these tend to have very limited coverage, so Medicaid is pretty much it in the case of serious illness or injury for the uninsured.) It is not the case that should Nathan become seriously ill, he could simply grab a little Medicaid and go on with whatever his job or other source of income at that time might be. Why is this so difficult for you and Nathan to grasp? One would expect that before making the monumental decision to forgo having health insurance, one would thoroughly research the implications. But Nathan has not and refuses to do so, and here you are pretending that public health insurance operates completely differently than it does. Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINKnoel, what do you care about the welfare of tens of thousands? As long as you can feel good about yourself, every Iraqi and Cuabn could live in totalitarian squalor until the end of time as far as you are concerned. As long as you could advance your tribe's talking points. It literally is the only thing that matters to you. Go ahead an lie some more about how I've expressed regard for George W. Bush or the Republican Party, however. Lying is the other activity that makes you feel good. Posted by: Will Allen on June 19, 2007 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINKStefan (I can't say that I've ever taken a gypsy cab, why would I?) and Shortstop, want to explain to me again what's wrong with Cheney's One Percent Doctrine? I'll help you out. in a nutshell, there are many statistically unlikely but catastrophic risks that could be (to some extent) ameliorated by significant sums, or measures taken now. However, no one can ameliorate all of them. So you have prioritize. further, every dollar spent on them is an opportunity cost on something else. oh, and Shortstop, I'd rather eat at Per Se once at 32 then three times at 80. and I'd much rather be having sex with that hot young thing at 32 than at 80. so, yeah, my choices lean toward consumption at this point in my life. Posted by: Nathan on June 19, 2007 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINKStefan: Merely having a small amount of assets won't qualify you for Medicaid. Nathan, for example, with his $105K salary would never be able to qualify. and: Assets may not exist now, but if you're stuck with a big hospital bill due to not having insurance you'll have to pay that off with future assets. Precisely. Once again, Nathan will have the choice of going on public aid if he wants Medicaid or potentially spending the rest of his life paying off his medical bills. And if he chooses the latter, his creditors aren't going to wait around patiently for his minuscule monthly payments. He will be under enormous pressure every week or day of his life to pony up, his creditors will obtain judgments against his future income, and if major medical care is ongoing, he'll also be under great pressure to declare himself indigent so the provider can be reimbursed by the feds and/or the state. Or again, he can try declaring bankruptcy--good luck with that now that we have bankruptcy "reform." Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINKshortstop: where do you get my complaining about not having insurance? I said that it's a rational choice. (I would vote for single payer universal health care, but that's a separate matter.) kathryn: um, this is NY. I don't drive a car. heck, my license expired. cabs here are heavily regulated and usually owned by businesses (not the individual cab driver). they have serious insurance. sure, I've had female friends with serious physical medical issues...(I don't hang out with seriously depressed people)...and it's certainly conceivable that I could pay 8K for some (relatively) minor surgery. so? that's little more than the cost of insurance for one year. I've already paid for that and more by foregoing insurance. shortstop: "It is not the case that should Nathan become seriously ill, he could simply grab a little Medicaid and go on with whatever his job or other source of income at that time might be." actually, I could. stop doing the legal stuff...presto...no real income. go on Medicaid. get well. return to work. Posted by: Nathan on June 19, 2007 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINKNathan isn't worried because, when he rolls in the trauma center after that cab runs over him, I'll be up all night fixing his sorry ass for nothing. I've done it for 30 years and that gives one a unique view of the immigration situation. More than half the uninsured are illegals. I'm not defending the present system because it is unsustainable but I am amused when ignoramuses opine about such complex subjects. Posted by: Mike K on June 19, 2007 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINKshortstop, there are many state plans which allow an otherwise uninsurable person to obtain coverage, even a person earning a decent income,although I'm certainly not sure about New York. Again, however, you are ignoring the relative odds of a healthy 32 year old male with good habits having such misfortune befall him prior to age 40, and ignoring the odds that he will marry somebody with access to an open enrollment plan. I will say this however; an insurance salesman's dream is the person who wants to insure against the loss of assets which don't exist. Posted by: Will Allen on June 19, 2007 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINKanonymous: um, what "tort reform" are you talking about? I believe the legislation which was proposed (and not passed) dealt with limitations on punitive damages...which would have no bearing on medical cost awards. Kathryn: "Her own insurance wasn't evil, but it did have a cap. Like the guy said above- $180,000 for one surgery isn't difficult. She had multiple surgeries, and lots of post-op stays, and plenty of rehab: she hit the cap hard." so basically you're fucked even if you have insurance. then why should I spend 35K on it for the next five years? shortstop: you're right, I haven't thought through what I would do if a catastrophic, unpaid for health event hit. you're absolutely right. I also haven't thought through what I would do if I was hit by lightning, or how I would live my life as a paraplegic (should have married a long time ago to have someone take care of me), or if that nuke went off or many other statistically unlikely catastrophic events...and neither have you. Posted by: Nathan on June 19, 2007 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINKMike K: correct. if you look up the thread you'll see that I'm certainly not supporting the current system. just noting that I'm a classic free rider...and that people like me make up a small percentage of the uninsured population. [warning: handle spoofing will get you banned] Posted by: Nathan on June 19, 2007 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINKStefan (I can't say that I've ever taken a gypsy cab, why would I?) *sigh* You don't have to take a gypsy cab to have one hit you, or the car you're in. Uninsured and/or underinsured drivers do exist. Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2007 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINKoh, and Shortstop, I'd rather eat at Per Se once at 32 then three times at 80. and I'd much rather be having sex with that hot young thing at 32 than at 80. so, yeah, my choices lean toward consumption at this point in my life. Huh. Personally, I'd rather eat at Per Se now and until I'm 80, and I'd rather be having sex with hot young things in my thirties and up to and well into when I'm 80. But then again, because I save a lot of money and am insured I'll be able to. Nathan, not so much. actually, I could. stop doing the legal stuff...presto...no real income. go on Medicaid. get well. return to work. AHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *wiping tears of laughter from eyes* Kids say the darndest things, don't they? Posted by: Stefan on June 19, 2007 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINKNathan: where do you get my complaining about not having insurance? Right here, pal, where you whined about not being able to afford it: if I added health insurance...($450-600 a month)...it wouldn't be pretty. Nathan: actually, I could. stop doing the legal stuff...presto...no real income. go on Medicaid. get well. return to work. Again, you've have to quit all jobs and give up all income. Right. So. "Get well." Except that, you know, we're not talking about a head cold in our scenarios here, nor is a car accident the sole possibility (although it seems to be the only one you can manage to picture. I do apologize to everyone for mentioning the sideswiping cab, but my point that it represented the outer limit of Nathan's understanding seems to have been dead on.). The serious and/or chronic illnesses you continue to pretend can't happen to you would require, you know, ongoing care. And ongoing care requires, you know, ongoing coverage past the date that you throw off the shackles of Medicaid. What are you going to do when you can't get private coverage for your preexisting condition, and the bills are piling up from the care you'll want to obtain? Do you plan to quit your job every two years, have a round of Medicaid-paid treatments, go back to work and do it all over again? Really, this is like talking to a child. shortstop: you're right, I haven't thought through what I would do if a catastrophic, unpaid for health event hit. you're absolutely right. I also haven't thought through what I would do if I was hit by lightning, or how I would live my life as a paraplegic (should have married a long time ago to have someone take care of me), or if that nuke went off or many other statistically unlikely catastrophic events...and neither have you. Well, let me help you out there. You're fucked on #1 and #2 because you were too damned stupid to get catastrophic coverage in the joyous "consumer" period of your don't-stop-not-thinking-about-tomorrow life. Stefan: *sigh* You don't have to take a gypsy cab to have one hit you, or the car you're in. Uninsured and/or underinsured drivers do exist. Terminal literalness, commonly manifested as an attempt to avoid grasping the larger picture. It can be treated, but the drugs are expensive. Does the patient have prescription coverage? Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINKWill Allen: shortstop, there are many state plans which allow an otherwise uninsurable person to obtain coverage, even a person earning a decent income There sure are, Will! Not "many," but some. As I mentioned above, they tend not to provide very extensive coverage. And are you aware they tend to have limited funding and very long waiting lists? Of course, Nathan has this covered, as he's carefully researched what his options are. Again, however, you are ignoring the relative odds of a healthy 32 year old male with good habits having such misfortune befall him prior to age 40, and ignoring the odds that he will marry somebody with access to an open enrollment plan. Not at all. I'm repeatedly asking Nathan what he plans to do in the event the statistics don't go his way and the girl of his dreams doesn't materialize one night soon at Per Se ("Excuse me, sir; your card has been declined.") and pledge him her troth and family coverage. I've yet to get an answer from him. As we know from his posting history, Nathan doesn't like to think about things that require him to engage in a little responsibility and self-denial. Posted by: shortstop on June 19, 2007 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINKNathan doesn't like to think about things that require him to engage in a little responsibility and self-denial. Sounds like the perfect GOPer. Posted by: ckelly on June 19, 2007 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINKKathryn: "Her own insurance wasn't evil, but it did have a cap. Like the guy said above- $180,000 for one surgery isn't difficult. She had multiple surgeries, and lots of post-op stays, and plenty of rehab: she hit the cap hard." Nathan: so basically you're fucked even if you have insurance. then why should I spend 35K on it for the next five years? Oh pshaw, you're just being trollish. She was in a bad accident*. If she didn't have insurance she'd have only gotten the bare minimum of all types of medical services. One of her surgeries made the difference between barely walking and walking ok: that's the sort of thing that affects the rest of your life. Have you never been in a rehab-focused nursing home? Considered all the little things you get with insurance? For example, you'll be more comfortable (less noise) if you only have one roommate versus three. You'll recover faster if you get physical therapy 7 days a week instead of 5. $35,000? That's three days in the hospital. One of my best friends recently did that because she got a MRSA (flesh eating bacteria) infection in her leg from working out at the gym. If you've got $35 in savings and are happy to drain it for a minor emergency, lovely. Maybe New York is different: in California one can buy a bare-bones catastrophic policy for under $100/month. My reasonable individual-account insurance is $300/month (I'm in my 30's). -------- …. no one in Cuba can hear you! Homer at 4:38 PMSo as bad as you say Cuba is, Moore manages to make the US look worse by comparison. I love it when you posit an argument that backfires in your own kester. …It doesn't make any sense to use $50,000 in current income to protect assets which don't exist… Will Allen at 5:29 PMIn typical Will Allen fashion, we learn that insurance is for the rich. Away, you poor buggers! You're not worth the cost. Who else might have their assets on the line in your scenario: the hospital, the hospital corporation, its donors, local governments, taxpayers…. D'uh, it's not only the uninsured. When you look at total cost of health coverage to Americans it comes out to over $6 000 per whereas in other countries with single payer, it's under $3 000. You get less for more. That's not being a smart shopper. ..what do you care about the welfare of tens of thousands? As long as you can feel good about yourself, every Iraqi and Cuabn could live in totalitarian squalor until the end of time ….Will Allen at 5:55 PMWhen did you ever care about the welfare of millions of Americans? Your protestations of concern about Cubans and Iraqis ring hollow. When it suits your political agenda, you express concern. When it doesn't, you don't; as, for example, the millions of other people in totalitarian lands. When Saddam was useful to Reagan, not one of you cared about his totalitarianism or his gassing Kurds. What did you ever do for Cubans but pursue policies that made their lives worse instead of opening up and making their existence better. When Americans sink into poverty, lose jobs, become uninsured, your response is a sneer of ideological superiority. Posted by: Mike on June 19, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK it's certainly conceivable Women of Nathan's age have a much bigger problem with lack of healthcare than men. Young men and women might not contract a disease or have an emergency requiring medical care, but women have other medical needs, especially if they want to have children. The women who earn less than the median income have a very difficult time paying for healthcare. Perhaps women can overcome the powerful genetic forces enticing them to become pregnant, as economic libertarians would counsel them to do, but many women are going to choose having a child before menopause, and they will never live in households with incomes as great as Nathan's. Many other countries, including o | |